It's just not cricket

In the old days cricket was called a gentleman's game. Few, so very few, will call it that any more. All because the gentlemen have given up the game and left it to players and administrators.

So cricket can be as dubious (if an understatement might be permitted) as politics. The controversy surrounding Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralidharan, no balled by two Australian umpires in Australia, is a case in point.

The controversy started by umpire Darrel Hair, who curiously had umpired in matches in which Muralidharan played previously without calling him, has been made even worse by the dithering members of the cricket governing board called the International Cricket Council (ICC).

The ICC, which lays down the laws relating to international cricket, has suddenly been paralysed by inaction, as it showed in the Salim Malik bribery allegation case, also made, curiously, by Australians.

Sri Lanka rightly appealed to the ICC for a definitive ruling on the Muralidharan controversy in which the evidence clearly suggests that two Australian umpires have gone out of their way to try to end the career of the Sri Lankan off spinner, who coud prove a real danger to Australia in the coming World Cup matches on South Asian wickets. All this chucking nonsense started after he took five wickets against Queensland.

Former Australian cricket captain Alan Border called it a "set-up", while former Australian test opener Keith Stackpole said Muttiah Muralidharan would not have been no-balled if he was an Australian playing for Australia.

Such statements from reputed Australian cricketers themselves, coupled with devastating remarks from Sunil Gavaskar, indicate that the Sri Lankan is a victim of racism or for being one of the best off spin bowlers in the world.

It is not Muralidharan but the ICC's action that is suspect. It has refused to rule on Sri Lanka's appeal, saying that even if it does, some umpire somewhere might no-ball him later.

What kind of a governing body is this? It is like a supreme court refusing to deliver a verdict because some lowly magistrate some might differ from it.